Thai Airways - Infant Fares!

[technocracy]

I have been a staunch supporter of Thai and the service that they provide - I held gold card until the other month when it expired - basically all my journies I have made in the past 5 years have basically all been on Thai. However no more will that be the case.

We are going back to the UK for a 3 weeks in the September and so I have been checking out prices for 2 adults & 1 infant (<2 years no seat required).

Now I understand on most routes Thai Air is frequently one of the more expensive carriers however for the convience of having well linked flights into Vientiane I have happily paid the extra. However, this week I check out the price of the tickets for Vientiane via Bangkok to Heathrow, adults were priced at $1640 so approx 54120baht. This initially shocked me as a few weeks previously I had been quoted 46500baht. I know the fuel tax is high but nearly a 20% increase?? Now I didn't buy the tickets when quote 46k as we had to apply for UK Holiday visa for my wife.

But like I say the convience of Thai non-stop from BKK to LHR the 54k price was acceptable enough that was until I questioned about the price for an infant.

The initial reply . . . $1120!!!!!!!!! I was staggered! My immediate reaction was surely that's wrong and ask whether she had check for an infant or a child needing a seat? I'll double check was the reply she then said oh yes that is wrong it should be $901!!!!

On leaving the agent I immediately went to the Thai air office to double check - they confirm both prices! The $1120 being flexible and the $901 non flexible. I said I thought infants were supposed to be 10% - the response 10% of FULL fare . . however its obvious that no full fare economy (let alone business class ticket) to LHR costs $9010 let alone $11200!!!

I check with Etihad price per adult from BKK to MAN (manchester being our final destination if via Thai to LHR we'd used BMI up to MAN) via Abu Dhabi not only are the adult prices cheaper but the infant costs a grand total of 3655baht!

Inclusive of a Lao Air connecting flight to BKK for the Etihad it costs less than just the adult prices of Thai Air from VTE to LHR (let alone adding BMI to it!).

So all I can say is goodbye for good Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

[samran]

strange. Each time we've flown, the infant under 2 has flown free, except of course for the tax, which to Australia/NZ is in the vicintiy of 7000 baht. Not sticking up for Thai in any way of course, as it isn't the best airline about. Even though I'm a gold member I'm thinking of SQ next time we go back to OZ...

[technocracy]

strange. Each time we've flown, the infant under 2 has flown free, except of course for the tax, which to Australia/NZ is in the vicintiy of 7000 baht. Not sticking up for Thai in any way of course, as it isn't the best airline about. Even though I'm a gold member I'm thinking of SQ next time we go back to OZ...

Well this is what I was kind of expecting or the minimal fare ala Etihad. Even checking Thai Air flights from the UK to VTE it's £380. If they are trying to put of people travelling with babies they are going about it the right way!

[samran]

I said I thought infants were supposed to be 10% - the response 10% of FULL fare . . however its obvious that no full fare economy (let alone business class ticket) to LHR costs $9010 let alone $11200!!!

just re-read something.....you sure that isn't baht they've quoted you? the number for some reason ring a bell for be, but in baht.....

Maybe a glitich in the system...miscommunication???

[Shah Jahan]

The infant price quoted is %10 of the Full Fare ticket Plus all Taxes and surchages. This also means Plus tax on the full fare.

on our last trip BKK-LAX (dec) it cost us 36k for each adult and 20k for the infant

we realized after that it would have been cheaper to just buy a child seat ticket.

flying domestically infants go free on Nok.

[b19bry]

As a reference, in late April, the infant fare when we flew BKK to DXB was about 3,000 baht on Emirates

[Rinrada]

Another member elect of the EX Thai Airways RoC GOLD Club.........

[dougieboy]

I said I thought infants were supposed to be 10% - the response 10% of FULL fare . . however its obvious that no full fare economy (let alone business class ticket) to LHR costs $9010 let alone $11200!!!

just re-read something.....you sure that isn't baht they've quoted you? the number for some reason ring a bell for be, but in baht.....

Maybe a glitich in the system...miscommunication???

I only ever flew once with Thai, it was nice and no stops but cant afford now me and the missus? Dont think so, Etihad or Jordanian for us!

[pgs]

It is 10% of the FULL fare - not the discounted fare you're already paying. There is a huge difference in price.

If we were all charged the full fare, most of us wouldn't be flying.

[technocracy]

It is 10% of the FULL fare - not the discounted fare you're already paying. There is a huge difference in price.

If we were all charged the full fare, most of us wouldn't be flying.

I am fully aware of this and fully aware of what a FULL fare actually costs (you don't become a gold card member by flying on restricted cheap tickets!) but like I said in my post no full fare Economy class ticket costs $11200 - I believe a full economy fare is approx $5000 roughly the same as a discounted Business Class ticket.

Anyway I have booked my flights with Singapore Air - who yes are more expensive that Etihad but the fact that we can have a free stopover on the way back in Singapore swung it.

Even for a superior airline like Singapore Air they were still $300 per adult cheaper than Thai and the Infant ticket cost $500 less! Think about it - $1100 saving - with a free stopover AND with a superior airline AND the convenience of flying direct into Manchester.

So where do I get my membership number for the EX Thai Airways RoC GOLD Club ?

[choppychugger]

I have been a staunch supporter of Thai and the service that they provide - I held gold card until the other month when it expired - basically all my journies I have made in the past 5 years have basically all been on Thai. However no more will that be the case.

We are going back to the UK for a 3 weeks in the September and so I have been checking out prices for 2 adults & 1 infant (<2 years no seat required).

Now I understand on most routes Thai Air is frequently one of the more expensive carriers however for the convience of having well linked flights into Vientiane I have happily paid the extra. However, this week I check out the price of the tickets for Vientiane via Bangkok to Heathrow, adults were priced at $1640 so approx 54120baht. This initially shocked me as a few weeks previously I had been quoted 46500baht. I know the fuel tax is high but nearly a 20% increase?? Now I didn't buy the tickets when quote 46k as we had to apply for UK Holiday visa for my wife.

But like I say the convience of Thai non-stop from BKK to LHR the 54k price was acceptable enough that was until I questioned about the price for an infant.

The initial reply . . . $1120!!!!!!!!! I was staggered! My immediate reaction was surely that's wrong and ask whether she had check for an infant or a child needing a seat? I'll double check was the reply she then said oh yes that is wrong it should be $901!!!!

On leaving the agent I immediately went to the Thai air office to double check - they confirm both prices! The $1120 being flexible and the $901 non flexible. I said I thought infants were supposed to be 10% - the response 10% of FULL fare . . however its obvious that no full fare economy (let alone business class ticket) to LHR costs $9010 let alone $11200!!!

I check with Etihad price per adult from BKK to MAN (manchester being our final destination if via Thai to LHR we'd used BMI up to MAN) via Abu Dhabi not only are the adult prices cheaper but the infant costs a grand total of 3655baht!

Inclusive of a Lao Air connecting flight to BKK for the Etihad it costs less than just the adult prices of Thai Air from VTE to LHR (let alone adding BMI to it!).

So all I can say is goodbye for good Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Try the travel company here on thai visa, I flew back with my partner and son ( he was just under 2 ) to the uk for approx 84,000thb with Qatar airways, reason being that the flight stops in Qatar approx 7 hours from Bangkok for a well earned leg stretch for the little man, then it was back on the flight for 7 hours to London. The airline service was good, and the thai visa travel company were always there to assist with a friendly informative service. Will defo use them again.

choppy

[Mark Wolfe]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

[peterjohn]

mark I think you are a bit rough or you have plenty of money or may be no children

they are not just animals and when you have to travel you just farm them out till you get home

It is not the children it is the stupid parents that some time dont control there children or may be dont plan there journey

my children behave better than some drunks (heavy drinkers) on the plane and demanding this and that

you sound like a past so called mate.

loves making them but after that lets move on

just a ass hole

[ClaytonSeymour]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

[ClaytonSeymour]

mark I think you are a bit rough or you have plenty of money or may be no children

they are not just animals and when you have to travel you just farm them out till you get home

It is not the children it is the stupid parents that some time dont control there children or may be dont plan there journey

my children behave better than some drunks (heavy drinkers) on the plane and demanding this and that

you sound like a past so called mate.

loves making them but after that lets move on

just a ass hole

How many people taking very young children on an aircraft fall in this category? Some, yes, but perhaps not for the majority.

I am of the opinion that if travel isn't essential & you can't keep them quiet, don't take them - wait until they're a little older.

High fares for youngsters seem a very good incentitive to persuade those whose travel is not essential to leave them at home.

[mrtoad]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

It may be annoying, and I have to admit that it has driven me nuts at times, and I'm a parent. I've always resisted taking long haul flights with my kids until they are old enough to travel comfortably and happily. My daughter likes going on the plane, but to be honest she's probably only happy for a few hours maximum, so until she's a little older no trips to the UK.

In the end, if you really want to avoid the noise that often frequents economy class, then a upgrade to biz is normally a safe bet.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

It may be annoying, and I have to admit that it has driven me nuts at times, and I'm a parent. I've always resisted taking long haul flights with my kids until they are old enough to travel comfortably and happily. My daughter likes going on the plane, but to be honest she's probably only happy for a few hours maximum, so until she's a little older no trips to the UK.

In the end, if you really want to avoid the noise that often frequents economy class, then a upgrade to biz is normally a safe bet.

Even business class doesn't guarantee sanctuary - certainly not from the offspring of rich arabs.

[lomatopo]

until I questioned about the price for an infant.

How old is your child?

Every airlines has different fares for children depending on age.

Most airlines will still apply the full YQ fuel surcharge even to heavily discounted infant fare. YQ fuel surcharges from SE Asia to the UK are ~ 10,000 THB.

Airlines have many different fare buckets so it is challenging to compare prices between carriers, more so when you factor in differing routings. Even with a single carrier, like TG who has ~ 10 economy fare buckets, you need to be able to ticket as soon as you see a price you like otherwise that fare bucket might sell out. Additionally there may only be two cheap W fares left and you need three tickets, so you might have to split the purchase or buy all three at the higher say V fare.

I have to admit I could not follow your narrative what with all the mixing of currencies, carriers and routings so not sure what to say re: different airlines' infant fare structures?

Etihad seems to have extremely competitive pricing BKK-LHR.

[choppychugger]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

(L)only child?

[technocracy]

Well here's a surprise bitter faced &lt;deleted&gt; hijack the thread to express there displeasure of infants on a plane - completely expected.

I have been a frequent traveller and of all the journeys I have made on an aeroplane I can only remember once where a baby was an actual annoyance. This was in part due to my lack of sleep from a previous connecting flight and the fact I was sat behind them the crying only lasted for an hour or so but in my tetchy lack of sleep disposition I wasn't best pleased. But in no way do I have the right to say that a baby should be charged full fare.

In all my journeys I've been far more often annoyed and disturbed by drunk wanke_rs who don't understand that leaning on the backs of peoples seats whilst they shout to the person sitting next to them is annoying everyone except him. Then since they are so pissed they need to pull themselves up to go to the piss ever 10 minutes using the back of your seat. Or the exceptional loud fuc_kwitted sex tourist dregs travelling to Bangkok in a pack of 10 - who for some reason think that everyone on the plane needs to know about there plans and how many whores they are going to fuc_k.

Here's a bit of advice for you sad bitter fools when you reserve your seat, reserve it away from the bulk heads where they allow for baby bassinets and put your headphones on - simple. If your SO concern purchase some sound deadening headphones so they'll cut out pretty much everything, when I was frequently flying thats what I did (even though they didn't stop the wanke_rs leaning on my seat or yanking my seat back to stand up from annoying me)

You know it's actually easier to take an infant because they'll only be awake for 2 hours or so at a time and sleeping for the rest.

Oh and if it's ok with you the flights which I booked are in his sleeping hours at night so he'll sleep the majority if not all of the flight.

As for the rediculous statements of 'leave them at home' just how small are your tiny brains? Do you think a baby is like a dog that you can put in a kennel whilst you go away?

But feel free to be reamed through the arse for over priced Thai Air tickets if you feel you have a better chance of avoiding the slight possibility of a crying baby. Thai Air and your kind deserve each other.

I personally would like to see fat content and BMI measurements made at check in so making excessively overweight individuals purchase 2 seats so I don't have to suffer there stinking sweaty fat rolls which overflow into my personal space also making generally overweight people having to pay an excess fare. These people weigh more than me and my babys weight combined so if I have to pay 70% to take my baby they should pay 170% due to excess weight. Fair deal?

[GeorgeW]

The calculation is simple. Let's use US dollars so we don't confuse things by using different currencies.

The infant fare is 10% of the full fare plus taxes and surcharges. The full fare is about $5000. The taxes and surcharges are about $600 due to the rediculously huge increase in the fuel surcharge a month ago. 10% of $5000 is $500, plus $600 tax/surcharge is $1100. Their ticket price is correct. Thai is killing their business with these huge fuel surcharges rather than just increasing the ticket prices. The fuel surcharges have a huge negative impact on frequent flyers wanting to get award tickets, people traveling with infants, etc. They have an absolute idiot managment team that doesn't know the first thing about running an airline. SQ's fuel surcharges are certainly high but at least not as ridiculously high as Thai's. I doubt the high fuel surcharges will last very long though because once everyone walks away from Thai after seeing there ridiculous fuel surcharges their passenger numbers will tank and their losses will soar. The result will hopefully be sacking their entire upper management and replacing it with people who can at least think logically.

[technocracy]

until I questioned about the price for an infant.

How old is your child?

Every airlines has different fares for children depending on age.

Most airlines will still apply the full YQ fuel surcharge even to heavily discounted infant fare. YQ fuel surcharges from SE Asia to the UK are ~ 10,000 THB.

Airlines have many different fare buckets so it is challenging to compare prices between carriers, more so when you factor in differing routings. Even with a single carrier, like TG who has ~ 10 economy fare buckets, you need to be able to ticket as soon as you see a price you like otherwise that fare bucket might sell out. Additionally there may only be two cheap W fares left and you need three tickets, so you might have to split the purchase or buy all three at the higher say V fare.

I have to admit I could not follow your narrative what with all the mixing of currencies, carriers and routings so not sure what to say re: different airlines' infant fare structures?

Etihad seems to have extremely competitive pricing BKK-LHR.

Our child will be 7 months at the time of travel.

The reason I quoted VTE to LHR for Thai is because they don't fly into MAN but do fly from VTE - I would then book BMI from LHR to BKK.

The facts in figures:

Thai Air - VTE - BKK - LHR - Offered fare 54120 per adult, 36960 for infant (we want flexi)

Etihad - BKK via ABU - MAN - Offered fare 41420 per adult - 3655 for infant (non flexi)

Singapore - BKK via SIN - MAN - Offered far 44695 per adult - 19015 for infant (flexi with 500 baht change fee)

EVA - BKK - LHR - 12000 infant regardless of class

Cannot remember the Qatar price but lets just say the infant fare was no where near Thai Air

[Cuban]

Uncontrolled children are a pain to other travellers.

I don't really care about the cost issues - but please would the airline place all those that are not adults together so they do not disturb the rest of us.

One comment about prices - dogs and other animals are charged for so why not kids.

[ClaytonSeymour]

As for the rediculous statements of 'leave them at home' just how small are your tiny brains? Do you think a baby is like a dog that you can put in a kennel whilst you go away?

Most problems have viable solutions - of course you can't put them in a kennel, but you can certainly leave them with the in-laws, do both parents need to travel etc.

Having children means making sacrifices & as far as I'm concerned - longhaul travel is one of them. I stand by comments; young children should only be taken on long haul flights if it's absolutely essential & there's no viable alternative.

Signed

Bitter faced arsehol_e

[technocracy]

Uncontrolled children are a pain to other travellers.

I don't really care about the cost issues - but please would the airline place all those that are not adults together so they do not disturb the rest of us.

One comment about prices - dogs and other animals are charged for so why not kids.

The basics are animals take up cargo hold space - infants sitting on mum and dads knees do not. Anyway I haven't said I expect them go free - just not at the rediculous price that Thai Air dreams up. Our child will be controlled the last thing I want is him crying, strangely parents don't like there baby crying - believe it or not!

Most problems have viable solutions - of course you can't put them in a kennel, but you can certainly leave them with the in-laws, do both parents need to travel etc.

Having children means making sacrifices & as far as I'm concerned - longhaul travel is one of them. I stand by comments; young children should only be taken on long haul flights if it's absolutely essential & there's no viable alternative.

Signed

Bitter faced arsehol_e

How silly of me I could just dump my child at my in-laws who have to work and don't have any amenities to take care of the child. The fact is we are travelling as a family purposely to visit family in the UK and the fact is like a responsible parent I have book flights which will fit with his sleeping pattern and he will sleep the vast majority of the flight. What is your problem?

So here's the deal you book your seat away from the bulk heads, wear your headphones, get pissed and annoy people back there and I'll sleep whilst my baby sleeps and take care of him when he awakes.

[asiaworld]

I have been a frequent traveller and of all the journeys I have made on an aeroplane I can only remember once where a baby was an actual annoyance. This was in part due to my lack of sleep from a previous connecting flight and the fact I was sat behind them the crying only lasted for an hour or so but in my tetchy lack of sleep disposition I wasn't best pleased. But in no way do I have the right to say that a baby should be charged full fare.

You see ..even while you object, you still admit baby being a nuisance . Now knowing how sardine-packed planes are , every baby is whithin the annoying distance of a few dozen of passengers . Now don't you think there's at least a few of them already so overstressed by today's flying/tired & longing for peace.. so think again, how big of annoyance babies are !

If i had a choice, i'd prefer to fly next to a couple of cats or dogs instead(sure they'd make less noise).

Sorry i'm not anti-baby, but i fly a lot & remember more than once being disturbed by babies.. c'mon, if your kid don't enjoy flying please don't force 'em to !!

[technocracy]

I have been a frequent traveller and of all the journeys I have made on an aeroplane I can only remember once where a baby was an actual annoyance. This was in part due to my lack of sleep from a previous connecting flight and the fact I was sat behind them the crying only lasted for an hour or so but in my tetchy lack of sleep disposition I wasn't best pleased. But in no way do I have the right to say that a baby should be charged full fare.

You see ..even while you object, you still admit baby being a nuisance . Now knowing how sardine-packed planes are , every baby is whithin the annoying distance of a few dozen of passengers . Now don't you think there's at least a few of them already so overstressed by today's flying/tired & longing for peace.. so think again, how big of annoyance babies are !

If i had a choice, i'd prefer to fly next to a couple of cats or dogs instead(sure they'd make less noise).

Sorry i'm not anti-baby, but i fly a lot & remember more than once being disturbed by babies.. c'mon, if your kid don't enjoy flying please don't force 'em to !!

Geez how hard can it be to understand - the baby will be 7 months - we are flying at the time he naturally sleeps - he's already flown from Udon to Bkk and didn't make a sound from take off to landing. He's a very quiet baby and rarely cries - if he wasn't I wouldn't consider taking him on a long haul flight as I am full well aware that people don't like babies crying in there vacinity.

I used to fly alot also and other than that one time I honestly can't remember being annoyed by any screaming babies, however I can remember numerous time being annoyed by obnoxious loud drunks.

Any case this isn't what this thread is about - so I'll you child haters to have a jizz-fest about how annoyed you are by babies on aircrafts.

Cheerio.

[lomatopo]

Our child will be 7 months at the time of travel.

The reason I quoted VTE to LHR for Thai is because they don't fly into MAN but do fly from VTE - I would then book BMI from LHR to BKK.

The facts in figures:

Thai Air - VTE - BKK - LHR - Offered fare 54120 per adult, 36960 for infant (we want flexi)

Etihad - BKK via ABU - MAN - Offered fare 41420 per adult - 3655 for infant (non flexi)

Singapore - BKK via SIN - MAN - Offered far 44695 per adult - 19015 for infant (flexi with 500 baht change fee)

EVA - BKK - LHR - 12000 infant regardless of class

Cannot remember the Qatar price but lets just say the infant fare was no where near Thai Air

My best guess is that you or TG or a travel agent mistakenly got a quote for a Child in Seat (ages 2-11) rather than an Infant in Seat (under 2 years old). Hence the higher price, and the source of your rant. The Infant in Seat price on TG should be closer to the SQ quote, IMO. And not sure about the Etihad quote, that looks like it might be the Infant on Lap {no seat} (under two years old). I'd have to see the fare quote construct to sort it out. I guess I'm saying that you are comparing apples to oranges to mangoes so maybe give TG another chance? Having said that, fare buckets sell out and once the bucket is empty you'll have to pay more for the next bucket up, and definitely pay more for additional flexibility re: return dates and changes which might be in Y/B/M/H fare buckets.

[pedro01]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

What a pair of muppets.

Let's say you have an 6 month old child that is teething - chances are there will be some crying on the flight. Also - the change in air pressure sets kids off too.

It can't be helped. This is not about control - you can't 'control' a child in this condition. You can just do your best to make them comfortable.

As for not travelling with them - sorry pal but I have just as much right to a holiday as anyone else and my offspring travel with me - usually without any hassle either.

Usually - most of the problems on the plane are from those who can't control their Vodka & Tonics

[technocracy]

My best guess is that you or TG or a travel agent mistakenly got a quote for a Child in Seat (ages 2-11) rather than an Infant in Seat (under 2 years old). Hence the higher price, and the source of your rant. The Infant in Seat price on TG should be closer to the SQ quote, IMO. And not sure about the Etihad quote, that looks like it might be the Infant on Lap {no seat} (under two years old). I'd have to see the fare quote construct to sort it out. I guess I'm saying that you are comparing apples to oranges to mangoes so maybe give TG another chance? Having said that, fare buckets sell out and once the bucket is empty you'll have to pay more for the next bucket up, and definitely pay more for additional flexibility re: return dates and changes which might be in Y/B/M/H fare buckets.

Back to the topic. Nope that's what I thought when she first told me the price and I asked her to check again. She then checked the price for a child with a seat and that was 39930baht.

So definately apple and apples being compared here.